Just read/watched the TW review on the new Wilson 99s. The first thing I thought of was the infamous spaghetti racquet.

As Chris noted, he's hitting shots he doesn't own and is amazed it's even legal.
Me too.

I'm not sure but believe that both golf and baseball have pretty strict rules when it comes to these things. Tennis has a size rule (I think) but little else.

So where is this going? Can the manufacturers actually get within a stings width of making a racket that performs like the spaghetti did before somethings done?

The string technology has already done enough (good or bad, your call). Are we now going to get frames made specifically for getting the most out of those strings?

Mark Woodford played for years with custom made 14 main string racquets and I believe 12g string. 14 mains meets equipment requirements but don't have the energy to look them up. SO, I don't see how a 16x15 would be a problem. Also, the Prince Graphite 93 has 14 mains. I know the head is smaller but the pattern is very open. Trust me, if the 99s stick created and huge advantage it will be widely adopted by the pros.

Think about the adoption rate of the Pure Drive after Moya and Roddick won GS titles. Many pros switched to it and worldwide sales skyrocketed to the #1 seller. I'll bet you anything this Wilson 99s never comes close to even being a top 25 selling stick.

__________________
"i thought those were just a little harmless brown bugs, you know the ones take wings and fly? but it turned to be Flees." Fedace

Just read/watched the TW review on the new Wilson 99s. The first thing I thought of was the infamous spaghetti racquet.

As Chris noted, he's hitting shots he doesn't own and is amazed it's even legal.
Me too.

I'm not sure but believe that both golf and baseball have pretty strict rules when it comes to these things. Tennis has a size rule (I think) but little else.

So where is this going? Can the manufacturers actually get within a stings width of making a racket that performs like the spaghetti did before somethings done?

The string technology has already done enough (good or bad, your call). Are we now going to get frames made specifically for getting the most out of those strings?

Oversize graphite rackets and poly strings have already exceeded the amount of RPMs first observed with the original spaghetti strung woodies of old. It was banned because they didn't want to see the type of modern baseline game that we have now. Granted, the difference between the 99S and other modern rackets is not anywhere near the jump between woodies and spaghetti strung woodies it is certainly a step in the wrong direction.

Oversize graphite rackets and poly strings have already exceeded the amount of RPMs first observed with the original spaghetti strung woodies of old. It was banned because they didn't want to see the type of modern baseline game that we have now.

It wasn't high RPM spin (like you get with open patterns) that was the problem with spaghetti racquets, it's that fact the ball comes off like a very irregular knuckle-ball. I remember doing this when I was a kid by taking some fishing line and wrapping it around some strings. You have control issues but can hit these weird unplayable shots that look like breaking balls

As long as everyone has access to the same equipment I don't see the problem. If something comes along that gives a clear advantage, everyone will use it and the playing field will be level again.

Then everyone should just play with spaghetti rackets and we can all play table tennis on a really big table.
The problem is really that this is just the first try at matching the racket to things that the polyester strings allow. I'm sure that the racket and string engineers will keep pushing the technology until it is like playing with spaghetti strings.
I was thinking about how things might progress the other day. Players will soon be able to hit what are lobs higher than players could reach at the net, but with enough forward velocity that it would be essentially a 20ft high passing shot that lands near the baseline. No one would have a chance of winning a point anywhere hear the net. Thus the game would be pretty much like the Harold Solomon, Eddie Dibbs matches of old. There would be zero benefit from hitting any agressive shot.
However (this is where it gets odd), the way to actually win a point in a rally of less than 125 or so shots would be to hit a drop shot. What you would want to do is to pull your opponent toward the net so that you would have essentially a 100% chance of passing him. The answer to this tactic, of course, is to hit a drop shot back and pull you to the net, also. Therefore, you would end up playing dinks and angles with both players at the net. If someone lobbed the ball over the opponent the one hitting the ball would also run backwards to the baseline as fast as possible to not be put in the untenable position at the net with the opponent back.
You would end up with an incredibly boring baseline game with spasms of mini-tennis.

Of course, when people really figure out how to serve with them, every serve would be unreachable because it could be hit with a high velocity and still with enough spin to land very short in the court and spin far away from the receiver .